Slashdot Mirror
Linux Xbox Project Seeks Microsoft Signature
silvaran writes "We've had several Microsoft posts, and here's another, from CNet News. The team behind the XBox port of Linux is seeking a digital signature from Microsoft to approve the XBox Linux project. This would allow it to run on an unmodified XBox. According to the article, "Microsoft will be eligible to apply for an award under this scheme if they approve Xbox Linux as a normal Xbox program."
And more importantly, they'd end up losing money on the deal.
All of the console makers lose money on the consoles, and attempt to recover that money by licensing software titles.
Signing the linux code so that it can run, free, doesn't pay the bills. It also encourages people to buy machines that will never be used to run licensed software titles.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Why *wouldn't* Microsoft want this? Think about it - if they allow linux to run on the Xbox, then the arguments about "I have a modchip because I want to run linux" is useless. It gives them more fire power in court when it comes to nailing people with mochips. Yes, it's a competing OS and they don't like it - but Microsoft is about one thing, MONEY. If they can gain one more weapon in the battle against modchips, this would be a huge one to have.
since signing Linux means that ANY other application can be run on top of Linux (Think Wine, VMWare and so on..), which nullifies ALL of the controls Microsoft has put in place to make the console 'theirs'.
It is like asking Microsoft to ship X-Boxes with a modchip mounted on it already. Hell will reach absolute zero, and Microsoft will STILL not touch this idea with a ten-mile pole.
Yes but if they admit that then they're admitting to running an illegal software monopoly. Their public argument for the digital signatures is as an antipiracy measure.
This is an interesting move as Microsoft has to sign xbox-linux or else is proves the point about illegally restricting competition.
I read this open letter a couple days ago, and not only is it unlikely (understatement?) that Microsoft would take them seriously, the authors don't even really appear to care whether or not Microsoft agrees with them. The whole letter is interspersed with a number of jabs at Microsoft, which is not something that I would really consider wise if you want Microsoft to take you seriously. As well, they obviously don't understand the console video game market ("... Microsoft's deliberate design choices in terms of restricting the software that may run on an unmodified xbox ...", "Xbox Linux gives choices back to the user which Microsoft denies them ...", "In terms of our being an 'established game publisher' [19], members of our team have written games in the past, and our Xbox Linux distribution runs such fine games as 'Tux vs Clippy' [14], 'Tux Racer' [15], and 'Frozen Bubble' [16]," and so on). In a nutshell, they don't seem to understand that Microsoft has every right to restrict what software runs on their console (see Nintendo, Sony, Sega, et al). There's no "denial of choice" -- if you want a computer, don't buy an XBox. And writing a few amateur games does not give one the title of "established game publisher". Maybe "established game developer", in which case they could try getting into Microsoft's incubator program for developers with a good idea but no publisher, but that's not going to happen for the XBox Linux project.
Microsoft is responsible for making sure that only quality software (err ... let's ignore stuff like Kabuki Warriors, eh? All consoles have to have their share of stinkers ...) is released for their console. Otherwise, we'd be right back in 1984 and the last video game crash. A major contributing factor was Atari's lack of certification for games, and the subsequent glut of pure crap. Do we want to go back to that? I know I don't.
Finally, there are definitely piracy issues here. Right now, while it's not exactly difficult to modify an XBox, it's at least a small barrier of entry to the pirate underground. As well, it makes for a fantastic way to keep cheaters off of XBox Live. How simple would it be to write a small loader for copied games or cheats when you start from an open platform like Linux? If this gets certified (fat chance), the mod chip barrier to entry is no longer there, making it trivial to pirate games or cheat online. You can say what you will about piracy (piracy sucks, imho), but I think everybody will agree that online cheaters are teh suck.
After his talk and demo, he was asked whether Linux would run on the Xbox (I think it was the first question asked). His answer (I'm paraphrasing) was interesting:
His talk hadn't mentioned code signing, so no-one asked him whether they'd sign a linux image. I figure he's right on that last point - it's easy to imagine a signed "aint-it-cool" general purpose linux image being quickly coopted into a wrapper that allowed copied games to be played.
So perhaps the question should be "why would Microsoft _want_ to sign an Xbox linux image?". I doubt "so they can sell more Xboxes" is going to be persuasive enough.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
Which does Microsoft make more money on? 1. Selling Xboxes to people who are going to buy games and make them profit. 2. Selling Xboxes to people who are going to run Linux off them and make no money.
If MS does sign it...then they've legitimized their largest threat - bad for microsoft
If MS doesn't sign it....clear case of MS using its monopoly in one market to attempt to dominate another = more antitrust lawsuits
Its a no-win situation for MS.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
But the courts barely did anything to Microsoft. No breakup... They effectively won.
My guess: MS will completely ignore the request. They would never in a million years give their "rival" a boost like that, so silence or denial are the only options, and in this case, silence is the best response from the MS standpoint. No bad press for denying it. Sure, communities like this will be tear them a new one, but overall, if MS ignore it, it will, sadly, go away.
"Signing the linux code so that it can run, free, doesn't pay the bills. It also encourages people to buy machines that will never be used to run licensed software titles."
/. with actual practical use of it. Hate to sound like a troll here, but so far this whole "Linux on the XBOX" project smells more like a "How can we make trouble for Microsoft" project than a "ooo if only we could do that we could do something really cool!" project. As if MS would do anything to contribute to that.
I don't think that'd actually happen. Who'd buy an XBOX to run Linux on it, without wanting to play games on it? That won't happen.
a.) What app would you want to run on it that'd be worth $200 or so?
b.) What would the advantage be towards getting an XBOX vs. buying a bare bones PC, except that you'd be able to play games?
c.) What benefit is there period?
People here are all excited about the potential of running Linux on the XBOX, but nobody's exactly bombarding
If MS says no, it won't be because people are going to buy it without buying games as well. It'll be because they'll be concerned about what will eventually evolve from it. I.e. will they be opening the door to bypassing their protection with signed code? (i.e. Linux XBOX emulator)
At least with a real focus on a use for it (that also compliments playing games...) MS would have encouragement to allow it. "We want to port Linux to it so that we can play DiVX movies. That way, we can keep the XBOX in the living room instead of the kid's room..."
The letter seems more like a platform to reiterate common gripes Linux users have with the MS empire. I can't see how anyone who was part of constructing that letter thought it would do any good in the way it was written. It's as if it was written by a French diplomat.
The letter alleges that an email alias at xbox.com might not be staffed due to the "dumping" of xbox's and the poor fiscal performance of the xbox "division".
Also, the letter places restrictions on MS if MS sees fit to given them a key. The mountain in this case, is told which path it should crawl on to get to Mohammad.
It's somewhat comical, and sad at the same time. Either way, useless. If MS _DID_ give them a key, it would be for a specific build/version/signature only. And that just won't make these guys happy.
I recommend the authors of this letter read up a little on basic diplomacy. My recommendations:
"Save face" concept is a way to solve conflicts and avoid embarrassing or discomforting the parties involved.
How to Win Friends and Influence People
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Here's why it's not going to happen: Microsoft is adamant that the XBox is NOT a PC. All of their PR so far has tried to distance the XBox as far away as possible from PCs. It runs Windows, but you never see the traditional Windows look or any reference to Windows or DirectX anywhere. Microsoft keeps their logo small and unobtrusive so people don't associate the XBox primarily with Microsoft and Windows. They even changed the shape of the USB ports on the front so that you can't plug in PC peripherals (including mice and keyboards), and they're not selling adapters. Microsoft wants everyone to think of the XBox only as a gaming device, never as a general-purpose computer. Signing Linux would run contrary to all their insisting that the XBox is not a PC. If you somehow ported Windows XP to the XBox, they wouldn't sign that either. The fact that Linux is GPL just makes that much less likely.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
there was an article linked here recently where someone set up a cluster of xboxes and a cluster of cheap pc's and concluded that cheap walmart pc's were faster and more cost effective than the xboxes. so who's going to buy all these machines to run just linux? poorly?
no, if you buy an xbox, you're almost 100% going to play games, too.
I could use it to watch DVDs, play games online, e-mail, listen to music, webcasts, PVR, all in the living room, and do all that with a controller and a remote. And I wouldn't have to build, or attempt a Linux PVR install from a discarded desktop computer either trying to get compatible hardware and compiling software from source.
It does serve, as MS intended, a good base for an entertainment center rather than just a gaming console.
And, the box will actually fit in with the rest of the room too.
Does my bum look big in this?
please, show me the software on linux that will do this and not require a month to cobble together. really. I've looked and looked and played with everything out there. it's all pre-pre-alpha, takes forever to gather the pieces and still comes up short. if this software existed, I would cede your point.
int getRunning() { // Done!
// Get a file from the hard drive to prove we're legit
// pass controll to it
return;
}
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
The Xbox sits in your living room, imagine being able to put mp3s, divx, and play dvd, and on top of that, being able to stream stuff from other pc's on your network. That's about all you could do, since the hardware is all proprietary. But I think that's enough.
On top of this, if MS does sign this, then you won't have to mod your xbox just to run media files. Once you've modded your box it gets to the point where you decide to just get pirated stuff since it's already modded.
By keeping it unmodded, you'd be able to still run games and get on xbox live. it seems to me that people would be more likely to buy non-pirated games if linux didn't require getting a mod. This should still allow people to buy legal games -- the main argument for why MS won't allow such signatures.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001